by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, PublisherOriginally Posted: 10/22/2004

Who is a liberal? What is liberalism? We have a definition here. We’re willing to accept criticism of our definition, and you can send us criticism in the feedback form when it opens. We do want to make a distinction between a liberal in terms of a rank-and-file liberal, a person who has principles that he or she identifies as fiscally and or socially liberal, and the elitist liberal, those who are the presently disempowered in DC, and their friends who want them in power.

These liberals are the true oligarchists in this country. They seek the power to which they feel entitled. They feel intellectually superior and are personally confident that they and only they have sufficient gravitas and judgment to decide what is good for all. They believe that the average person has limited intellect, but they’ll never say it to their faces. They will say that they support the rights of the minority factions in this country, but in reality they look at minorities as so subpar that they need special help to make it in a world dominated by bourgeios white men.

When a member of a minority succeeds without the aid of the numerous programs the elitists have through their benificence provided, that person is derided and attacked as a sellout to the bourgeoisese. Should they achieve high office, for example National Security Advisor or Supreme Court Justice, hell hath no fury that approaches the wroth inflicted upon this person, who rightly deserves our respect and praise. This is the ultimate form of bigotry, the assumption that people of a certain class of minority are unable to fend for themselves even more than the rest of the people, who to these elitists are mere serfs to be controlled.

They want to heavily tax the most productive in our society to pay for their programs. These programs are touted as "safety nets" and protection for the disadvantaged, but are slyly designed to lock these people into utter dependence on the government. Why? In order to lock in a constituency and ensure that they are permanently empowered by people who will feel that there is no choice if they want the gravy train to continue.

They are frequently super-rich people who act as if they are the only ones who can understand the plight of the poor. They advocate the ultra-taxation of the productive while they evade paying their "fair share" of taxes by using the very loopholes they publicly deride. They deride those who disagree as overly simplistic, imputing that their opponents lack the mental capacity to understand their far-left position. They float grand plans, all of which dramatically expand the government at the expense of our Constitutional rights.

While they plan to expand the government further and further, they act as if they are the only champions of civil rights, mostly by advocating near-anarchistic licentious conduct and touting this lawlessness as a Constitutional franchise. They treat the government’s failure to fully fund any and everything one may desire, no matter how repugnant to the public, as a full denial of Constitutional rights to those who cannot afford to do that thing; using a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing argument that cloaks their desire to invert the Constitution and make it the People who derive their rights from the Government, when the opposite is our founders’ true intent.

They act as if they are in favor of "choice," but their plans are designed to limit or even eradicate real choices. They want the government to control the schools and to keep the parents out of the process. The mere idea of allowing a parent to choose the school that the child attends is treated as an anathema. They deceptively cite a concern about church and state integration, when in reality the vast majority of these public schools are miniature propaganda mills for the leftist credo, a planting ground for the next generation of America-hating governmental dependents. Given the choice, the parents will send the children to places where they truly learn to be self-confident and self-contained. Meanwhile, these same elitists who deny our choices send their children to extremely expensive private schools where they get the best of everything, as well as a sense of entitlement to be the uppermost caste of a society intended by its founders to be casteless.

They treat those who work hard for success as "the winners of life’s Lotto," as if their hard work and dedication were meaningless to their success. They accuse these productive people, small businesspersons who provide not only for themselves but for the families of their employees, of being privileged wealthy people who do not do their full share of helping America. The accusers are guilty of that which they accuse the productive people of doing. Why try to lambaste these good people? These people have succeeded without the guiding hand of these sefl-appointed royal barons of leftism.

The elite liberals call conservatives "anti-intellectual," instead of answering our reasoned and reasonable objections to their grandiose plans to subjugate America to their doctrine. Since America was founded on hard work and self-reliance, they implicitly, perhaps subconsciously, deem the United States of America to be bad. We are strong; we must be weakened. We are industrious; we must be made to be lazier. We do not deserve to lead the world, for we are to these elitists too arrogant in our self-reliance. In their xenophilia, borne of their desire to be the royalty eschewed by our founders, they endeavor to subjugate our country to multinational organizations, as if our God-given sovereignty were somehow evil.

Should we attempt to placate these elitists, they will sense weakness and try to take a mile from the inch given. They still smack with anger, even rage, over the People’s decision to unseat them from a decades-long control of the Congress. That decision was all their fault; for in 1993 and 1994, the sitting president and his wife made a move to co-opt the medical care system in this country, far more than even the socialized medicine of France and the U.K., to the point where one would be a criminal offender if he wanted to pay for his or her own medical care. They lost their slyness; the sheep’s coat fell off the wolf for a brief moment, the People saw, and the tide finally turned. We of the Conservative movement were given a chance, and we put a bridle and bit on the wild bronco of elite liberalism in the White House at the time, leading to prosperity and helping the people to see the more of the wolf.

The elite left liberals controlled virtualy every news outlet, then in 1988 came a hero named Rush Limbaugh. There were now two points of view, and the conservative message, which is innately full of sense and goodness, came to light. The response was to engage in a relentless ad hominem attach against those who espoused the message, but, thank God, to no avail. That is the elite left’s "how dare you disagree with my intellectually superior self?" pervasive attitude. Disagreement, even subtle disagreement, is not tolerated within the membership of this elite society.